Cases Determined in the St. Louis and the Kansas City Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 26 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887 Excerpt: ...of objection is, that the ordinance was not pleaded by the plaintiff. In Robertson v. Railroad (84 Mo. 119), it was held that the cause of action, being at common law for the negligent killing of plaintiff's stock, it is not founded on such ordinance, and, therefore, it was not necessary to plead it; but if defendant was running its train in violation of it, it was competent to introduce the ordinance in evidence, in support of the charge of general negligence. To the same effect are the cases of Mapes v. Railroad (76 Mo. 367), and Braxton v. Railroad (77 Mo. 455). Under these rulings, the evidence was properly admitted, as bearing on the issue of negligence. III. The defendant offered in evidence the records of the county court, for the purpose of showing that, at the time of this injury, the law was in force in that county, prohibiting stock from running at large. This evidence was rejected by the court, and this is assigned for error. The undisputed evidence was, that the cow was injured on the first day of November, 1883. By the session acts of 1883 (Laws, 1883, p. 26), adopted March 27, 1883, provision was made for restraining animals from running at large. Although it appears, from a foot note, that this act was passed without the emergency clause, it went into force within ninety days after the legislative term, by operation of general law. The act was, therefore, in force at the time of the accident in question. By section 7, of this act, the provisions of this law were suspended in the several counties of the state until a majority of the legal voters of any county should decide, at a general or special election, to enforce the same in such county. The record offered in evidence by defendant shows that the election, held for this purpose, in Caldwe...

R806

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles8060
Mobicred@R76pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887 Excerpt: ...of objection is, that the ordinance was not pleaded by the plaintiff. In Robertson v. Railroad (84 Mo. 119), it was held that the cause of action, being at common law for the negligent killing of plaintiff's stock, it is not founded on such ordinance, and, therefore, it was not necessary to plead it; but if defendant was running its train in violation of it, it was competent to introduce the ordinance in evidence, in support of the charge of general negligence. To the same effect are the cases of Mapes v. Railroad (76 Mo. 367), and Braxton v. Railroad (77 Mo. 455). Under these rulings, the evidence was properly admitted, as bearing on the issue of negligence. III. The defendant offered in evidence the records of the county court, for the purpose of showing that, at the time of this injury, the law was in force in that county, prohibiting stock from running at large. This evidence was rejected by the court, and this is assigned for error. The undisputed evidence was, that the cow was injured on the first day of November, 1883. By the session acts of 1883 (Laws, 1883, p. 26), adopted March 27, 1883, provision was made for restraining animals from running at large. Although it appears, from a foot note, that this act was passed without the emergency clause, it went into force within ninety days after the legislative term, by operation of general law. The act was, therefore, in force at the time of the accident in question. By section 7, of this act, the provisions of this law were suspended in the several counties of the state until a majority of the legal voters of any county should decide, at a general or special election, to enforce the same in such county. The record offered in evidence by defendant shows that the election, held for this purpose, in Caldwe...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

May 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

March 2010

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 12mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

232

ISBN-13

978-1-154-22611-9

Barcode

9781154226119

Categories

LSN

1-154-22611-5



Trending On Loot